THE PvESOLUTION TO EXPEL MR. I 



OF oni8. 



1/ ^6> SPEECH 

HON. GEO. II. PENDLETON, OF OHIO, 

DELIVERED 

IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, lS6t. 



The House having under consideration the reso- 
•'ution to expel Mr. Long, of Ohio — 

Mr. PENDLETON said : 

Mr. Spbakeb : I have purposely refrained 
till this moment from taking part in this dis- 
sussion. I desired to wait until gentlemen 
apo-a this side and upon the other srfle of the 
Chamber should have said all they thought 
proper to say by way of criticism on the 
sp^'echof my friend and colleague, [Mr. Long.] 
I desired that gentlemen upon the other side 
of the Chamber, the gentleman from Mary- 
land, [Mr. Davis,] my two colleagues from 
Ohio, [Mr.-ScHENCK and Mr. gpALDiNO,] and 
the gentlemen from Indiana, [Mr. Okth 
and Mr. Dumoxt,] should have poured out the 
vials of their wrath upon the Democratic 
party. I desired that the vocabulary of in- 
vective and vituperation should be entirely 
exhausted. I knew it was inevitable. I de- 
sired that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Smith] should have made his speech, in which, 
though it was an hour long, he did not once 
allude to the question which is pending. I 
desired that all the false issues should have 
been made, that every attempt to draw off 
attention from the only question before us 
should have been fully tried, and then I in- 
tended to ask the House to come back to the 
consideratjon of this resolution. 

I, sir, shall not follow those gentlemen. I 
shall reply to none of their partisan crimina- 
tions. They do not touch the marrow of this 
question. They are unworthy of the dignity 
of this debate. I shall not express my opin- 
ion as to the soundness or unsoundness of the 
of the views of my colleague. I will be led 
into no false issues ; I will be diverted in no 
respect from the question before us. Its so- 
lution depends in no degree upon the opinion 
of any gentleman as .to the soundness of the 
views of my colleague, or as to the wisdom 
or propriety of tlieir u^teranoe at tkis tiioe. 



This question rises to a higher dignity. It" 
is important to my colleague personally ; it 
is important to every member of this House 
in his personal relations ; bat it is far more 
important inasmuch as it touches the organi- 
zation of this House, the organization of the 
Government itself. I shall therefore neither 
participate in partisan discussion nor retort 
the partisan allusions which have been made. 
I shall confine myself, as nearly as I can, to 
the question involved in the resolution of the 
Speaker. I shall endeavor to rise to the 
height of this great subject, and if I shall not 
be able to do justice to the argument, I will 
at least do justice to myself and to my owa 
appreciation of the spirit in which it ought to 
be discussed. And as I shall not discuss th» 
soundness of the views of my colleague, so I 
desire to say that no person who has spoken 
had authority to do so for me. I shall 
not in this debate asseht to nor dissent from 
those views. I have attended no caucus 
called either to indorse or repudiate them. 
I do not know that any such has been held ; 
certainly none has been held with my concur- 
rence. 

Where are we ? In a deliberative assembly 
whose chief function is discussion. Why 
were we brought here ? Primarily that we 
might represent the views of our constituents; 
and next, that by comparison of opinions, by 
argument, by persuasion, by addressing the 
reason and consciences of each other, wa 
might bo brought into accord and devise a 
system of legislation which would contribute 
to the welfare of the people, and, by conse- 
quence, to the perpetuation and the glory of 
the Government. What questions are brought 
before us ? What qijestions are now pending 
upon your table ? Conscription, confiscation, 
taxation, recruiting, the reconstruction of 
State governments, and amendments of the 
Constitution, and underneath them all lies 
the great question of the further prosecntioo 



IS 



J 



fTHE RESOLUTION T 




r, OF oni(5. • 



SPEECH 

OP 



HON. GEO.II. PENDLETON, OF OHIO, 

DELIVERBD 

IN THE HOUSE OP RKPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 11, 1861. 



The House having under consideration the rcso- 
/utioQ to exi>el Mr. Long, of Ohio — 

Mr. PENDLETON said : 

Mr. Speaker: I have purposely refrained 
till this moment from taking part in this dis- 
cussion. I desired to wait until gentlemen 
apo-n this side and upon the other siTle of the 
Chamber should have said all they thought 
proper to say by way of criticism on the 
speech of my friend and colleague, [Mr. Long.] 
I desired that gentlemen upon the other side 
of the Chamber, the gentleman from Mary- 
land, [Mr. Davis,] my two colleagues from 
Ohio, [Mr.-ScHENCK and Mr. Spalding,] and 
the gentlemen from Indiana, [Mr. Orth 
and Mr. Dumost,] should have poured out the 
vials of their wrath upon the Democratic 
party. I desired that the vocabulary of in- 
vective and vituperation should be entirely 
exhausted. I knew it was inevitable. I de- 
sired that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Smith] should have made his speech, in which, 
though it was an hour long, he did not once 
allude to the question which is pending. I 
desired that all the false issues should have 
been made, that every attempt to draw off 
attention from the only question before us 
should have been fully tried, and then I in- 
tended to ask the House to come back to the 
consideratjon of this resolution. 

I, sir, shall not follow those gentlemen. I 
shall reply to none of their partisan crimina- 
tions. They do not touch the marrow of this 
question. They are unworthy of the dignity 
of this debate. I shall not express my opin- 
ion as to the soundness or unsoundness of the 
of the views of my colleague. I will be led 
into no false issues ; I will be diverted in no 
respect from the question before us. Its so- 
lution depends in no degree upon the opinion 
of any gentleman as .to the soundness of the 
views of my colleague, or as to the wisdom 
or propriety of their utterance at tkis tiioe. 



This question rises to a higher dignity. It" 
is important to my colleague personally ; it 
is important to every member of this House 
in his personal relations ; but it is far moro 
important inasmuch as it touches the organi- 
zation of this House, the organization of the 
Government itself. I shall therefore neither 
participate in partisan discussion nor retort 
the partisan allusions which have been made. 
I shall confine myself, as nearly as I can, to 
the question involved in the resolution of the 
Speaker. I shall endeavor to rise to the 
height of this great subject, and if I shall not 
be able to do justice to the argument, I will 
at least do justice to myself and to my owa 
appreciation of the spirit in which it ought to 
be discussed. And as I shall not discuss th* 
soundness of the views of my colleague, so 1 
desire to say that no person who has spoken 
had authority to do so for me. I shall 
not in this debate ass^ht to nor dissent from 
those views. I have attended no caucus 
called either to indorse or repudiate them. 
I do not know that any such has been held ; 
certainly none has been held with my concur- 
rence. 

Where arc we ? In a deliberative assembly 
whose chief function is discussion. Why 
were we brought here ? Primarily that we 
might represent the views of our constituents; 
and next, that by comparison of opinions, by 
argument, by persuasion, by addressing the 
reason and consciences of each other, wa 
might be brought into accord and devise a 
system of legislation which would contribute 
to the welfare of the people, and, by conse- 
quence, to the perpetuation and the glory of 
the Government. What questions are brought 
before us ? What qijestioQS are now pending 
upon your table f Conscription, confiscation, 
taxation, recruiting, the reconstruction of 
State governments, and amendments of the 
Constitution, and underneath them all lies 
the great question of the further prosecutioa 










of this war. The President of the United 
States, in his message at the beginning of this 
scssioE, told us that he had issued a procla- 
mation of emancipRtion, and that so long as 
lie remained in his present position he would 
neither recall uor modify it. And yet we all 
know that proalamation is as worthless as the 
gentUmanfrom Maryland [Mr. Datis] de- 
clared it to be— as the paper on which it is 
written— unless enforced by the power of our 
ftrmies. The Tresidenttold us that he had 
issHed a proclamation of amnesty, that those 
who will take the oath of allegiance and swear 
obedience to his proclamations shall have au- 
thority to reorgRnizo the State governments, 
even though they be but one-tenth part of the 
population, and that he will maintain those 
State governments by all the power of our arms. 
Following immediately upon that message 
came a call for three hundred thousand men, 
and afterwards a call for two hundred thou- 
sand more. As a direct consequence, inevi- 
tably, we have had conscription bills, a defi- 
ciency bill of more than a hundred million 
dollars, and regular appropriation bills for the 
Army for $500,000,000, for the Navy $150,- 
000,000, and for miscellaneous purposes $2|0,- 
OOo'oOo'more. Taxation is necessary to raise 
this money, and we have tax bills. Loans are 
necessary, and we have loan bills. Greed of 
gain must be satisfied, and we have confisca- 
tion bills. Those bills are pending. They 
are before the House. My colleague must 
consider them ; he must vote upon them. His 
duty and his oath require it. The solution of 
all these questions, the propriety and neces- 
sity of passing these bills, depend upon the 
Bingle question whether or not this war shall 
be further prosecuted, and if so, in what man- 
ner and for what purpose ? This lies at their 
very foundation. It is the base of the pyramid 
of legislation wbich is sought to be built up. 
My colleague [Mr. Long] at the time ap- 
propriated for debate, at the only time when 
by the rules he could do so, rose in this place 
and decorously, decently-violating none of 
the proprieties of debate-with calmness and 
moderation and dignity, with a sincerity which 
has not been questioned, appealing to God for 
the purity of his motives, and responsible to 
his constituents for the wisdom of his views- 
proceeded to discuss that question without 
the consideration of whiqh none of the meas- 
nres nowpending before you can be honfistly 
developed or fairly deaded. 






Ho said that he believes this war to ha' 
been begun unconstitutionally, to have be 
prosecuted in an unwise and improper man 
ner. He said that the experience of ihnsi^ 
.years has led his mind to the conclusion that 
it can never result in a restoration of the 
Union, but only in the destruction of our re- 
publican system at the North ; that it ought 
to cease immediately, even at the expense of 
recognising the independence of the confede- 
rate States ; and he enforced his views by ap- 
peals to your reasons, to your judgment, to 
the highest motives by which legislators can 
be governed ; he asked yon to weigh »hi3 ar- 
guments and if you could honestly agree with 
him to assent to his conclusions. Will any 
gentleman tell me that this is not legitimate 
debate? Will any gentleman tell me that 
these are not legitimate considerations and 
pertinent to the matter before the Hgipse ? 

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be misunder- 
stood. The House has ample power to pre- 
serve decorum in debate. It has power to 
expel a member who, by reason of crime or 
personal turpitude, has rendered himself un- 
fit to perform the duties or enjoy the immuni- 
ties of membership ; but, it is not within the 
constitutional power of the House to expel a 
member for the expression of any opinion 
upon any political question, when such ex- 
pression of opinion is pertinent to the mea- 
sure before it. This doctrine is essential to 
the character of this House as a deliberative 
body. If it were not so, we of the minority 
would hold our opinions subject to the will 
of the majority. We would be compelled, at 
the risk of being expelled from this House, 
to express them in such delicate terms aa 
would not offend tho sensitive organization e) 
your loyalty. Sir, deliberation would bo t 
farce, discussion would be a sham, the pre- 
tense of debate ought to be done away with 
and this House assume its appropriate posi 
tion as a mere registry of the predeterminec 
purposes and preconceived opinions of a ma 
jority of its members. 

And yet gentlemen will say, as they hav 
repeatedly said, that while this freedom f 
debate ought to be allowed in time of peace 
when the country is in a state of profound m 
pose, it must be curtaUed when war existsi 
I take issue with them on that point. Tb 
time of war is the very time when we shoul 
consider these questions; then our highe; 
wisdom Should be invoked. When great dai 



gers threaten the Republic, the people, exas- 
perated hy the passions which war excites, or 
alarmed at the impending peril, are ready 
to parrf?nder power into the hands of their' 
rulers. They are embarrassed, anxious, lon"- 
Mg for peace, hoping success, fearing disaster. 
They cannot bear the uncertainties of their 
condition ; they desire more vigor, more ef- 
ficiency, more rapidity of action, and they he- 
liere they have attained them when they 
heap power on their favorites. Then this 
House should exercise the largest liberty of 
discussion ; then it should probe to the bot- 
tom the policies and motives of parties and 
of men. Were it not so the condition of war 
would perpetuate itself— it would be eternal. 
It would be treasonable in any man to rise in 
his place and say that he was in favor of peace 
upon ary other terms than those upon which 
peace might have been originally maintained. 
And why should there not bo this free dis- 
cnssion ? Wo have lost our true appreciation 
of the character of this body. We forget that 
arguments here are addressed to each other. 
We are so in the habit of magnifying our- 
selves that wo think every speech made in this 
Hall will reach the ear of the country. Tliat 
is a mist;: ke. Debate is for the members. It 
is for convincing the judgment and influenc- 
ing the vote of members. The speech made 
by my colleague [Mr. Long] was addressed to 
you. Are you afraid that his arguments will 
•onvince you ? Are you afraid that they will 
persuade you to vote with him ? Were they 
so cogent that you fear to trust yourselves ? 
Are you afraid that they will produce an ef- 
fect upon the people ? Are you afraid to trust 
the people ? Are you afraid to trust the pow- 
er which is behind you and which after two 
years will fill your places on this floor ? Why, 
1 repeat, should this speech not be heard ? 
G^onflemeu have said if— and if, and if— some 
great harm might be done to the Government. 
But has great harm ever been done by the 
freedom of debate in this Uall f Have you 
really any fear of results injurious to the 
country ? Or is this only a pretense under 
which is veiled your determination to gather 
in and consolidate the opinion of the country 
and prevent its wandering, in the least de- 
gree, from the paths in which you intend, if 
possible, to conduct it i 

1 have said, Mr. Speaker, that the expres- 
ion of an opinion in this House under the 
ircumstanccs which I have described, proper 



in time, pertinent to the subject of discussion, 
is not the subject of punishment. Over it the 
House has no power either of expulsion or of 
censure or of criticism. The history of tljis 
body, the history of all free deliberative as- 
semblies, with almost -absolute uniformity, 
shows that I ara correct. If there are excep- 
tions they are but milestones which mark the 
progress of free debate to its present perfection. 
They point a moral— I beg gentlemen not to 
forget it now. 

The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] 
told us yesterday that it was not for the ex- 
pression of an opinion, not even for entertain- 
ing it, that he proposed to exercise the puni- 
tive powers of the House. He told us the ex- 
istence of that opinion and the evident inten- 
tion of carrying it into effect by his votes on 
pending questions showed that my colleague 
was unfit to be a member of the House. In- 
deed! is that true f I had supposed opinions 
were for constituents. I had supposed that 
constituents were to decide whether they were 
wise and sound. I had supposed that the Rep- 
resentative spoke their voice ; that his place 
'ipon this floor was their place, his rights 
their rights, and that the immunities given to 
him were given for their benefit and protec- 
tion and not for his own. The entertaining 
of an opinion and being willing to express it 
here I it is that which makes my colleague an 
unworthy member of the House is it ? Sup- 
pose his constituents sendhim back, will you 
again expel him ? Will you enact again the 
farce of the British House of Commons in the 
case of Wilkes, and which after years ef trial 
it was obliged to give up : Entertaining opin- 
ions makes him an unworthy member I Why, 
sir, the opinions of one hundred thousand 
citizens are entitled to your respect ; they are 
entitled to be represented here whether you 
respect them or not; and the man who is 
chosen to represent them holds a seat hero as 
your peer. When you expel him you dis- 
franchise them. When you expel the Repre- • 
sentativeyou deprive the constituents of their 
voice. And are they to be denied representa- 
tion here until they elect a man whom yon 
may designate for them f This question is not 
to be evaded. We are not to be led from it 
by a false issue. We are not to bo told this 
party or that party is in the wrong, these con- 
clusions or those conclusions are not to be tol- 
erated. 1 say this House of Represnntatives 
must— I speak the word advisedly— must re- 



«eivc tho member whom any couslitucncy will 
elect to represent them. 

The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Davis] 
having announced hi3 opinion of the course 
of my colleague, and the reason why he 
should be punished, contented himself with 
citing two examples in which the Uouse had 
exercised this power. One was the case of 
the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Harris,] 
upon whom a vote of censure waa passed 
day before yesterday. This resolution was 
moved by tho gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. 
Washbckne,] who at the time called the pre- 
vious question. The gentleman from Mary- 
land [Mr. Davis] is too much of a lawyer to 
think that a case is of much authority when 
it is decided without opportunity for argu- 
ment. The other case, and the only other 
case to which he alluded, was that of Mr. 
Giddings. In 1842 he introduced a resolution 
in reference to the mutiny on the Creole, 
whereupon a gentleman rose in his place and 
moved that ho be censured by the House, and 
be was censured. Does the gentleman think 
that was a fr.ir case in which to exercise this 
power? Does ho approve of the censure? 
Doas he believe the case was fairly within 
the jurisdiction of the House? If not, he 
will scarcely cite it as authority for the exer- 
cise of the same power in this case. 

The gentleman will pardon me if I say that 
he diminished very much the force of his 
argument when in conclusion he told us that 
this was Buch a case that with law or against 
law, under the Constitution or against the 
Constitution, he would expel my colleague. 
If that be the position on which the resolu- 
tion is placed, if that be the ground upoa 
which it is offered, if gentleman abandon 
all pretense that it is according to law, 
that it is according to the Constitution, we 
will meet them on that ground also. For the 
present we prefer to believe the House sits 
under the Constitution ; that it is organiied 
by the Constitution ; that it exercises func- 
tions which tho Constitution prescribes, and 
that its powers are limited by the Constitution. 
My colleague from the third district [Mr. 
ScHESCK] places his support of this resolu- 
tion upon another ground. He says that the 
Constitution of the United States provides 
that for sentiments uttered in this House no 
member shall bo called in question in any 
other place. Ay, it does; and then, as I 
would «l«w the conclusion, the expression of 



an opinion in this Ilouca upjn a subject of 
legislation is a fortiori, protected by the great- 
est sanctions. A member shall not be called 
in question for a libel uttered upon this floor, 
nor for any offense against private rights. 
He is not to be intimidated by fear of the law, 
whether invoked in the criminal or civil courts 
of the country ; and, a fortiori, he is not to 
be called in question here by the House itself 
for the free expression of opinion in fair debate. 
You may punish a man for disorderly con- 
duct in the presence of tho House. The Con- 
stitution expressly says so. There is the 
limit to your power. You must bring the 
offense fairly within ttat definition. The con- 
struction of those words is not to be too nar- 
row. Usage has given to them a very large 
scope ; necessity, perhaps, has compelled it ; 
precedent has confirmed it. Yet, after all, 
the offense, unless it be a crime, must be 
brought fairly within the meaning of those 
words. I take it upon myself to say that by 
no stretch of the imagination can the deco- 
rous, candid, honest expression of opinion 
upon a matter of legislation pending before the 
House be construed into disorderly conduct. 
Mr. BOUTWELL. If the gentleman will 
permit me to interrupt him, I desire to ask a 
single question for the purpose of ascertain- 
ing whether we understood him correctly. 
Did he say that the power under the Consti- 
tution to expel a member was limited to the 
cause of disorderly conduct f 

Mr. PENDLETON. Yes, sir, I said it was 
so limited. I 'said that every case in which 
the power of censure or expulriion could be 
invoked and exercised by the House for acts 
done in its presence must be brought by soma 
latitude of construction, whether mere or 
less broad, within a fair interpretation of the 
words "disorderly conduct." 

Now, sir, just here I am reminded that two 
gentlemen from Indiana and one gentleman 
from Maryland undertook yesterday to ask 
us what rights of free debite were enjoyed in 
tho Congri^s at Richmond. TUmi, sir, is en- 
tirely immaterial to me. 1 do not know. I 
do not propose to cite them a , authority for 
any purpose. I do not propose to limit or 
measure our rights of free debate by any rule 
which they may adopt. It, is nothing to me 
what their rules allow or iht-ir' practice tol- 
erates. They may be a.i i ;. j^.:: i.al as the 
gentleman from Mary hiu'i ■ ■■ gentleman 

' from Indiana would ha\> ^e them to 



be. Tliey may be as tyrannical as either of 
those gentlemen would make this Iloase. Do 
you mean to follow their example f Do you 
mean to make^this House conform in its TvAea 
of order and debate to the practice of the Con- 
gress in Richmond ? 

I said a moment ago that the uniform prac- 
tice of deliberative bodies sustained the po- 
sition which I assumed, and that if there 
were exceptions they were so distinct, so 
well known, that they served only to mark 
the progress of legislative bodies toward the 
perfection of free deliberation. 

How was it when John Qaincy Adams pre- 
sented a petition in this House for a dissolu- 
tion of the Union ? I beg gentlemen to un- 
derstand that I do not introduce this example 
or others for the purpose of comparing: the 
views of my colleague with the views which 
were then expressed. I adduce it merely as 
a striking illustration. That proposition 
went to the very foundation of the Govern- 
ment. It struck at the very root of the 
whole govemmental system. Yet not in 
deference to the opinions either of Mr. Adams 
or the petitioners, but in deference to the 
right of freedom of debate, the House refused 
to censure him. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I do not 
know whether I understood the gentleman. 
I understood him to state that under the Con- 
stitution, in his judgment, this House had no 
power to expel a member except for disorder- 
ly conduct. 

Mr. PENDLETON. I. will tell the gentle- 
man exactly what I said. I said that to give 
this House jurisdiction to expel a member, 
the ofifense must, by a greater or less latitude 
of construction, be fairly brought within the 
meaning of the expression "disorderly con- 
duot." 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I believe 
that in the last Congress two gentlemen were 
expelled from this House. If I am not mis- 
taken the gentleman from Ohio voted for their 
expulsion. Was that for "disorderly con- 
duct" in the House? 

Mr. PENDLETON. Who were they ? 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Mr. Bur- 
nett and M*. Reed. 

Mr. PENDLETON. I voted for their ex- 
pulsion because they left their places hero 
and went into the armies of the Confederates. 
Do you not call that disorderly conduct ? 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. That is the 
gentleman's definition of disorderly conduct, 
and I accept it. 

Mr. GARFIELD, I dislike to interrupt the 
gentleman, but I wish to ask the gentleman a 
question, not to interfere with the course of 
his argument, but to draw him out upon this | 



subject. Suppose I, in a decorous manner, 
should rise in my place and introduce a reso- 
lution against the approaching campaign and 
plans of Grant about to bo adopted on the 
Potomac ; suppose I, having knowledge of 
those plans, in support of my argument should 
tell what his plans were in this House, should 
expose them, should state the number of 
men ; that one column was going in this 
direction and another in that ; suppose I, by 
my speech, made in the most becoming man- 
ner, as far as style is concerned, should tell 
the entire plans and operations of the cam- 
paign just about to commence, that would not 
be discourteous or indecorous ; yet I ask the 
gentleman if that would be an offense for 
which I could bo censured or expelled ? 

Mr. PENDLETON. I will answer my col- 
league. If these facts and details and plans 
were matter of public notoriety, it would be 
perfectly right to use them, and it would not 
be within the power of the House to expel 
him for their use ; if he went to the War De- 
partment and obtained the knowledge of the 
facts in confidence from those charged with 
their execution, if he obtained them surrep- 
titiously, if he obtained them as a member of 
Congress under the seal of confidence which 
exists between ofiScers of the 6am« Govern- 
ment, and coming here, having a right to ask 
this House to close its doors to receive a com- 
munication of that kind, he should not do 
that, but should make his speech the means 
of communicating information to the enemies 
of the country, it would be disorderly conduct 
in the highest possible degree. 

I was about to say that Mr. Adams in 1842 
presented a petition for a dissolution of the 
Union. It was sent here from Haverhill, 
Massachusetts. Mr. Adams presented it, and 
asked its refereace to a select committee, and 
immediately Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, and 
subsequently Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, 
moved a resolution of censure. I recollect 
the scene. I remember where the old man 
stood in yonder Hall. I recollect he rose in 
his place all trembling with excitement, and 
in one of those historic speeches which wiU 
live as long as the history of the English 
language shall remain, vindicated the right 
of the people to petition for a redress of their 
grievances, and the right of Representatives 
to present their petitions on this floor. And 
he argued the question against all comers ; the 
lists were kept open day by day, until, 
ashamed of the efforts they had mado to re- 
press this freedom of debate in the American 
Congress, the majority, who had at first per- 



eistentlj refused, at last laid the resolntion 
on tbe table. 

Gentlemen will say to mo this proposition 
t-o dissolve the Uaion was made in time of 
peace. Thomas Gorwia in 1847 attacked the 
Administration upon the policy, the conduct, 
the origin, and the justness of the Mexican 
war. The majority did not agree with him ; 
they abhorred his views ; but in deference to 
this great right of free debate in a representa- 
tive body they permitted it to pass uncen- 
sured. 

Again, in 1856, a Senator from Ohio, Mr. 
Wade, in time of peace, speaking of this 
Union which you now aft'eet so much to revere, 
used this language : 

"But southern gentlemen stand here and in al- 
most all their speeches speak of the dissolution of 
the Uci'in as au clement of every argument, as 
though it were a peculiar condescension on their 
part that they permitted the Union to stand at all. 
If they do not feel interested in upholding this 
Union, if it really trenches on their rights, if it en- 
dangers their institutions to such an extent that 
they cannot feel secure under it, it" their interests 
axe viulontly assailed by means of this Union, I 
am not one of those who expect that they will long 
continue under it. I am not one of those who would 
ask them to C'lntinue in such a Union. It would 
be doing vinlcnce to the platform of the party to 
which I belong. I see nothing at present which I 
think should dissolve it; but if other gentlemen 
see it, I say again that they have the same interest 
in maintaining this Union, in my judgment, that 
we of the North have. If they think they have not, 
be it so. You cannot forcibly hold men in this 
b'nion, for the attempt to do so, it seems to me, 
would subvert the first principles of the Govern- 
ment under which we live." — Congressional Globe, 
third semiioa Tliirtj Fourth Congress, vol. 34, j). 25. 

Did Senators agree with him? Did they 
think he was correct ? Did they believe that 
there was no power of coercion, and that any 
attempt at coercion would destroy the princi- 
ples of the Government under which we live ? 
Yet the American Senate did not think itself 
called on to pass a vote of censure or expul- 
sion. 

Again, sir, my venerable colleague on the 
Committee of Ways and Means from Pennsyl- 
vania [Mr. Stevens] said from his place in 
this Uouse, on the 9th of December, 1862, 
upon the question of the admission of West 
Virginia : 

"Now, these rebellious States being a power by 
the acknowlc'lgmcnt of European nations, and of 
our own nat.on, subject and entitled to belligerent 
rights, have become subject to all the rules of war. 
I hold the Cmatitution has no longer the least ef- 
fect upon t'.icin." * * * » " Hence 
I hold that none of the States now in rebellion are 
entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and 
I am grieved when I hear those high in authority 



sometimes talking of the constitutional difficulties 
of enforcing measures ngainst this belligerent pow- 
er, and th'o next moment disregardinj^ every ves- 
tige and semblance of the Constiluti m by acts 
which alone are arbitrary." * * * * 
" This talk of restoring tho ' Union as it%va3 un- 
der the Constitution as it is,' is one of the absurdi- 
ties which I have heard till I have become sick 9l 
it. This Union can never bo res'orcd as it was. 
There are many things which render such an event 
impossible. This Union shall never, with my con- 
sent, be restored under the Constitutiun as it is, 
with slavery protected by it." — Congressional O'lobe, 
vol. 47, part 1, p. 60. 

That was the language of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania. I do not cite his lan- 
guage to criticise it. I will institute no com- 
parison between his views and those of my 
colleague. The gentleman knows that I ea- 
tertain for him the kindest personal feeling, 
and that I would say nothing offensive to his 
feelings. Did the House agree with him ? 
Did any one ever venture to offer a resolu- 
tion to expel him? lie believed it honestly, 
he said it legitimately, in the exercise of a 
constitutional right. Sir, I honor him for 
speaking it boldly, and I honor this House 
for not having presumed to violate his right 
to speak it. And yet I call the attention of 
my honorable friend from Ohio, [Mr. Gab- 
field,] who is so loud in his denunciations of 
our colleague [Mr. Long] for having uttered 
these sentiments in time of war, that even at 
the moment when tho gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania spoke, the hosts were marshaled for 
the fight at Fredericksburg, that even then 
the pause in the click of the telegraph wire 
which he told us was the certain signal that 
the dread contest of arms had begun, was so 
distinct that its very silence was heard all 
over this land. It was then, when you had 
sent your soldiers to that field under pretense 
of maintaining the Union and supporting the 
Constitution, that the gentleman from Pena- 
sylvania rose and told you and them and the 
country that the Union never could be re- 
stored, and that with his consent it never 
should be. 

On the 11th of February, 1861, Mr. Craige, 
of North Carolina, introduced a resolution in- 
to this House requesting the President to ac- 
knowledge the independence of the Southern 
Confederacy, to receive its embassadors, and 
to adjust terms of commercial intercourse. 
By the concurrence of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Colfax] it was referred to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations. Did we 
have any resolution of censure or expulsion • 



No member dreamed [that it was kis duty to 
offer one. 

Need I dwell longer upon this snbject f I 
had intended to go back to those splendid 
demonstrations of English liberty which oc- 
curred at the time of our Revolution. I had 
intended to recall to you the words of Lord 
Chatham uttered time and again in the Brit- 
ish Parliament against the then pending war 
in America. The in«xorabIe bonr rule bids 
me be brief. In January, 1776, he said: 

" The gentleman tolls us America is obstinate, 
America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that 
America has resisted. Three million people so 
dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to 
f ubmit to bo slaves would have been fit instruments 
to make slaves of the rest." 

In November, 1777, eighteen moaths after 
the Declaration of Independencd, after two 
years of war,-he said : 

" As to conquest, my lords, I repeat, it is impos- 
eible. You may swell every expense and every 
efl'ort still more extravagantly — pile and accumulata 
every assistance which you can beg or borrow, traffic 
and barter with every little pititul German prince 
that soils and sends his subjects to the shambles of 
a foreign prince — your efforts are forever vain and 
impotent. If I were an American as I am an 
Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in 
my country I would never lay down my arms, 
never, never, never. 

" But in such a war as this, unjust in its princi- 
ple, impracticable in its means, and ruinous in its 
consequences, I would not contribute a single effort 
nor a single shilling." 

And Mr. Burke, in 1781, after the sorrender 
of Yorktown had secured the defeat of the 
British in America, exclaimed : 

" The noble lord said the war was not disgrace- 
ful ; it was only unfortunate. For my part 1 must 
continue to call it disgraceful, not unfortunate. I 
consider them all alike, victories and defeats; 
towns taken and towns evacuated; new generals 
appointed and old generals recalled ; they are all 
alito calamities ; they all spur us on to this fatal 
business. Victories give ushepes; defeats make 
us desperate ; and both instigate us to go on." * 
» « * " Give us back our force nor pro- 
tract this burdensome, disgraceful, for it is not an 
unfortunate war." 

And yet, were they censured? Did the 
"first gentleman of England" leave the 
Speaker's chair to move a vote of censure or 
expulsion i 

But why go so far back ? Within this year, 
in the French Chamber, Thiers, returning after 
twelve years of exile from ofiBce and honors, 
raised his voice for the liberty of France: 
"Give us a free press ; give us free ballot ; give 
us free debate in these halls — these are the es- 
sentials of free government — and I will bo a 
grateftd and obedient snbject of the empire. 
If you will not, I warn you UxAt, as the dau- 



phin did not succeed Louis XVI, as the Duke of 
Reichstadt did not succeed the great Napoleon, 
as the sons of Louis Phillippe are now in ex- 
ile, 80 neither will this imperial prince suc- 
ceed to the throne of his father and perpetu- 
ate the dynasty of the second Napoleon." 
And when, in the samo debate, Count Momy, 
the President, rudely assailed a speaker who 
uttered like sentiments, aad a Councillor of 
State followed it up by the use of the word 
"traitor," the indignant members with one 
accord rose in their places and with irresisti- 
ble authority demanded that the insolent 
menial of despotic power should recall and 
apologize for the offensive word. 

And shall it be said that in the American 
Congress there is less freedom of debate than 
in England under the house of Hanover, or 
in France, when she lies a helpless victim^ 
scarce palpitating, in the grasp of a Bona- 
parte ? 

The eloquent gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Davis] told us last night, that when Lord 
Chatham, aged, feeble, wrapped in flannel 
and suffering from disease, came resting upon 
the arm of his still greater son, to address for 
the last time the British House of Lords, and 
to die upon the floor, he came to speak against 
the dismemberment of'the British Empire. 
It is true, and what did he say f "I told you 
this war would be disastrous ; I predicted its 
consequences ; I told you you could net con- 
quer America; I begged you to conciliate 
America ; you would not heed my advice. 
You have exhausted the country ; you have 
sacrificed its men ; you have wasted its trea- 
sures ; you have driven these colonies to de- 
clare their independence ; you have driven 
them into the arms of our ancient and hated 
enemy, and now, without striking a blow, 
without firing a shot, cowardly under diffi- 
culties as you were truculent in success, yea 
propose to yield through fear to Franco what 
you have refused as justice to America." 
Did it not occur to the gentleman from Mary- 
land that possibly at a future day when the 
history of that civil strife shall have been re- 
produced in this land, another Chatham may 
come to this House and hurl against those 
who are now in power these bitter denuncia- 
tions because they will have shown themselves 
unable to make an honorable peace even as 
they were unable to make a victorious war ? 

The gentleman from Maryland besought the 
House never to be swerved from its fixed par 



8 

pose to prosecute the war '« with the last am • ' ^p ^°!*u5\r^ 

be needed. In November, 1781, after C 
waliis had surrendered Yorktown and the 
battle of the Revolution had been fought, 

House of Commens in its address to the thrc •*„ „,iia 

asrred his Majesty that it would vote all the and beauty gon« ; xts Pjlar^ fallen ; its waU 

Te ou ces of the empire to suppress rebellion thrown down; and amid ' th,s chaos of rum" 

nTm ca In Ma^ch of the next year, in those who accept this issue, brave, deter^ 

he e'rly spring, in less than six months, that mined, tearful, sorrowing, overwhelmed wxtb 

same Hon- of Commons voted those were it in a common fate He exhorted h.s fnend^ 

enTIies to the realm who advised the further in this House and in the country-he expressVr 

pToTecution of the war. And this House this excluded you, my fellow ^emocrats -d you 
morning voted down the Crittenden resolu- 1 constituents-to accept this alternative. Do 



■d his friends to 
( victory or ab- 
be painted that 

® J?xa destroyed; its grace and symmetry 



it, he exclaimed, and let the world know that 
this age- has produced heroic children upon 
whom Heaven has visited the Bins of their 
fathers. 

Sir, I trust in God the catastrophe may 
never come. I trust that the ages, as they 
roll on, will not thus be called to pass judg- 
ment on the men of these days. But, if it 
must be so, my imagination pictures another 
scene. When your work shall be accom- 
plished, when your mission shall be executed, 
when our Constitution is dead, when our 
liberties are gone, when our Government is 
destroyed, when these States— no longer held 
secure in their proper position by the power 
of our matchless Constitution, so that they 
emulate in accordant action the stars, as by 
the divine decree they encircle In their 
mysterious courses the footstool of the eternal 
throne, and extract from the harmony of con- 
flicting elements the true music of the 
spheres— shall have given place to "States 
discordant, dissevered, belligerent, to a land 
rent with civil feuds and drenched in fraternal 
blood," history will hold its dread inquest, 
and in tho presence of appalled humanity will 
render judgment that base and degenerate 
children, deserting tho teachings of their 
fathers, deserting the teachings of the past, 
departing from the ways of pleasantness and 
peace, rebelling against the wisdom and bene- 
theever-romngsea. Nothing but the princi- ficence of the Almighty with hearts filled 
pis truth and right can stay the onward with pride and souls stamed wUh fanaticism 
progress of public opinion in this our coun- and passion, struck the matncidal blow and 
fil as it swells and sways and surges in this at the same moment indignant and outraged 
mad tempest of passioa and seeks to find a Heaven wreaked upon them the just retribu- 
secure resting place. 1 tion of their terrible and nameless crime. 



tion, which less than three years ago was 
passed with only two dissenting votes. 

The gentleman from Maryland paid a splen- 
did tribute to the power of public opinion. He 
compared it to the sea, whose tidal waves 
obey the fickle bidding of the moon, and roll 
and swell and sway with restless and resist- 
less force, and yet constitute the level from 
which all height is measured. 

'•But, like the ocean," said he, "it has 
depths whose eternal stillness is the condi- 
tion of its stability. Those depths of opinion 
are not free." 
Did he forget what horrors 

. _« woo'd the slimy bottom of the deep, 

And mocked the dead bones which lay scattered by. 

, » » » * » 

•\Vbat sights of ugly death within mine eyes! 
Mothought I saw a thousand fearful wrecks ! 
A thousand men that fishes knawed upon— 
All si^attercd in tho bottom of the sea." 

Sir, if thero be depths of public opinion 
where eternal stillness reigns, there gather, 
even as festering death lies in those ocean 
depths, the decaying forms of truth and right 
and freedom. Eternal motion is tho condition 
of their purity. 

Did he think this resolution would for one 
instant retard its progress ? Did he not know 
that the surging waves would wash away every 
trace of its existence ? Did he suppose this 
pony effort would avail him ? The ro-^ks of 
the eternal hills alone can stay the waves of 



LIBRARY OP 



CONGRESS 



^006 774 402 



/ 



J 



